Editorial: County wise to take more time with creek rules

WISDOM PREVAILED over political expediency Tuesday when the Marin Board of Supervisors voted to slow down the approval of new creekside protection restrictions.

Too many property owners are still unclear about the possible ramifications.

For the board to move forward with the approval process that is far ahead of public awareness would be wrong.

Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey has been the board's pointman on this issue for nearly seven years. He has to be growing weary of the debate.

But the issue has grown more complex as it has become a moving target. An ordinance once specific to the San Geronimo Valley watershed has been enlarged to cover all unincorporated county-governed lands.

That means a lot of people who had once thought the fight was "someplace else," now find themselves in the middle of the battle and are still trying to figure out what the dustup is all about.

The supervisors agreed to form a special committee to take a new look at the proposed rules. That committee should meet in public and stakeholders should be at the table.

At its polar extremes, the debate is between property restrictions that protect and enhance the habitat for coho salmon and homeowners' private property rights.

Property owners say the county's proposed ordinance is too onerous, creating new building restrictions and a new and costly layer in the permit process. Environmental groups, led by the Marin —based Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, compare the restrictions to Marin's ban on ridgetop development that has helped keep ridgelines free of development. SPAWN says that human intrusion has to stop to restore spawning habitat for coho, a federally designated rare and endangered species.

While the proposed ordinance is filled with restrictions and requirements, what's missing is the building of a community ethic of protecting and preserving our creeks.

That may be more effective than any county ordinance.

Unfortunately, building that ethic and an ordinance at the same time is difficult, especially when groups like SPAWN may file another lawsuit to push the county closer to tougher restrictions.

Kinsey says there needs to be greater emphasis on building "partnerships" in the community to protect creeks and fisheries.

The ordinance is an effort to reverse years of damage to the habitat caused by creekside construction, some of it never submitted to the county for a building permit.

The broadening of the ordinance to cover areas countywide, including those near ephemeral streams — or wet-weather drainage ways — is a good reason to slow down and make sure the public has had a fair chance to be aware of the ordinance and its ramifications.

Slowing down to make sure the public has a chance to catch up makes sense.

Kinsey deserves credit for persuading his colleagues on the board that extra time and effort are warranted.